Columnist Richard D. McHugh is president of Skier Feeding Inc., a food-service consulting firm specializing in ski area feeding. He is the hotel and resort management department head of the Washington County Vocational Technical School in Calais, Me., and was general manager of food and beverage concessions at Mt. Snow, Vt., for A.B.C. Consolidated, a subsidiary of Ogden Foods. He is a graduate of the Hotel and Restaurant Management School at the University of Massachusetts.
Every food service operator should periodically review the handling of food wastes. Design consultants generally project waste amounts based on the type of operation and the number of meals served. For example, cafeterias usually generate ¾ to 1½ pounds of solid waste per seat per day. Although helpful in planning, these are only guidelines and have distinct limitations when it comes to waste classification (see Table I). Ten years ago, there was a large amount of Garbage in food service operations. Today, with convenience foods and disposable tableware, most waste is Rubbish. This creates added problems for ski area operators and necessitates careful analysis of the rubbish disposal system.
Every operator should conduct a waste analysis survey before making decisions on waste management. Forms for such a survey can be obtained from waste equipment manufacturers, design consultants or from Ski Area Management magazine. The survey should cover collection, storage and abatement.
Seldom is sufficient attention given to collecting and separating waste. An efficiency expert would have apoplexy watching busboys clear tables at most areas. Rather than running from table to waste receptacle to kitchen, busboys should use carts that carry waste receptacles, space for trays, water for cleaning tables, clean ash trays, and soak tanks if silverware is used. In the kitchen, waste receptacles large enough to handle peak periods should be placed at locations where the waste is generated.
Unless employees are trained in these collection systems, much of the equipment’s efficiency will be lost. The importance of completely filling trash containers and the separating of waste must be emphasized. A half-filled container means two trips to the storage area instead of one, and twice as many paper or plastic inserts. And mixing combustible and noncombustible, sewage-acceptable and nondegradeable, and liquid and solid waste will only increase the disposal costs.
Good housekeeping principles are essential in temporary storage areas to avoid creation of a breeding area for rodents and insects. Area operators should analyze these temporary storage areas. Open trash barrels exposed to the elements often scatter dry waste and the odors of putrescible solids. Ski areas, for the most part, do not need refrigerated refuse storage areas, but if moisture content of the waste is above 35 per cent, freezing must be prevented.
Ultimate disposal usually involves a combination of methods. Electric disposers, collection service, compactors or incinerators. Electric waste disposers grind meat and vegetable waste at the point of origin, eliminating the need to store them. They do not take up valuable kitchen space, are easy to install and are connected to the sewage system. It is important to consider the quantity and BOD (biological oxygen demand) of composite liquid waste in the overall system design. These electric disposers use vast quantities of water, and when heavy waste (high BOD) is involved during peak production periods, they should have holding tanks to dissipate the fluid in a steady stream over an extended period.
If solid waste is collected by a municipal or private refuse service, ski areas should seriously consider compaction, because the cost of collection can be reduced by having fewer loads. Table II gives approximate volumes for different types of waste. Rubbish can often be compacted as much as 10 to 1, while garbage can usually be reduced 5 to 1. Compactors range in size from recently-marketed home compactors to gigantic crushers that compact 1200 cu. ft. per hour.
Compactors cut down drastically on refuse storage space and reduce pilferage, because employees cannot hide products in the refuse. Also, these compactors cut fire hazard because a solid pack is less combustible than loose rubbish. Rodents are easier to control, and the compacted refuse can always be used for land fill.
Compactors, however, require a floor drain and create odors without a thorough housekeeping program. Recently, the market has been glutted with compactors which are attempting to ride on the coattails of ecology. Although there are several well-engineered compactors available, most are large-volume, heavy-duty models applicable only to larger ski areas. Most compactors from the “home” and “restaurant” supply sources are expensive and are operationally incompatible since they compact directly into plastic bags which tear easily and their small capacity requires constant attention to avoid overloading during peak demand periods.
Nondegradeable products, such as glass and tin cans, can be converted into sanitary land fill through use of can and bottle crushers. These are well-engineered products and were on the market before ecology became popular. These crushers are recommended only where the load factor justifies several hours of operation daily. Otherwise it is probably cheaper to haul these noncombustibles away intact.
Incineration is often overlooked as a solution to waste disposal because of many misconceptions about stack effluent. In fact, there is no local code, even with extreme, restrictive controls on smoke and odors, that a well-engineered and properly-applied commercial incinerator will not meet. Most incinerators have gas-fired after-burners in the stacks. An electric model has also been developed for restaurant waste. Almost all commercial incinerators meet Presidential Order #11282 which states, “All incinerators in federal facilities shall not emit particulate matter in excess of 200 grains per standard cubic foot of flue gas calibrated at 12 per cent CO2.” Most are 300 per cent more efficient than this requirement.
Incinerators do require ample square footage and it is often expensive to build stacks or flues. Most consultants consider incineration too expensive, but careful cost projection extended over a meaningful period (10 years) would justify the investment, especially where waste must be transported from mountain to base area by ski lifts or over-snow vehicles.
In summary, the area operator must cope with the problem of waste disposal in the most efficient and least expensive manner for his operation. Careful analysis of the amount and types of wastes will determine whether a compactor, an electric waste disposer, an incinerator, or a refuse service is most appropriate.
| Type | Description | Moisture Content (%) |
|---|---|---|
| RUBBISH | packaging, containers, paper plates, napkins, rags, floor sweepings, clerical waste | 25 |
| REFUSE | 50 per cent Rubbish and 50 per cent Garbage | 50 |
| GARBAGE | meat, vegetable and other food-product waste | 70 |
| Rubbish | 8-10 lbs./cu. ft. |
| Refuse | 15-20 lbs./cu. ft. |
| Garbage | 40-50 lbs./cu. ft. |
| Loose paper | 4-7 lbs./cu. ft. |
| Garbage can | 18×24 in. | 3.6 cu. ft. |
| Garbage can | 15×22 in. | 2.0 cu. ft. |
| Bushel | 1.25 cu. ft. | |
| Barrel (U.S. Standard) | 4.0 cu. ft. |
